I hate to break this to some of you, but there are no forced-disarm provisions for European citizens. You want a gun here? You can get one, no problem.

The individual states do in fact have tanks and aircraft...but the president can federalize them..who's order would they follow?

The C-in-C.

Our military is divided into different branches, who would they follow if president did not give up power?

The C-in-C.

Civilian police forces are heavily armed also.

Some are: tactical teams. *cue "theme from SWAT" here*

A potential dictator also has to deal with the Secret Service which serves the President not a dictator.

...and if they're one and the same?

They also have arrest power if someone tried to usurp power from or threaten the elected President.

Ditto. Also, what if it's a movement within a political party (say, one interested in a fundamentalist theocracy) that is jockeying for power?

Your view of right to bear arms is simplistic.

As is your assumption that this right is unique to your country. The arms one can purchase in Europe are limited in the same way as those in the States: the practicality of affordability. Here, the State will always have the advantage, and it is naive to think otherwise

You've described a number of power divisions in your country--ones common in other nations as well--but the biggest source of armed power is still federally-controlled. These divisions you describe serve to consolidate federal power.

Your simplistic assumption that a single dictator is the only way totalitarian rule can come to a nation ignores the many instances in history that parties and similar groups were able to achieve this end.

Others have pointed out that written rights-in-principle exist in your country even though the political process can be--and sometimes has been--co-opted and corrupted by poweful vested interests. A number of other nations can make this exact point about their own political situations. So what?

I hate to break this to some of you, but there are no forced-disarm provisions for European citizens. You want a gun here? You can get one, no problem.

Bullshit. Buy a full auto M60 then and post pics.

Originally Posted by Vieux Normand

The C-in-C.

Is not infalible.

Originally Posted by Vieux Normand

The C-in-C.

Works for us, not the other way around.

Originally Posted by Vieux Normand

Some are: tactical teams. *cue "theme from SWAT" here*

Who are residents of the comunities they police.

Originally Posted by Vieux Normand

...and if they're one and the same?

Then they are guilty of treason and vastly outnumbered.

Originally Posted by Vieux Normand

Ditto. Also, what if it's a movement within a political party (say, one interested in a fundamentalist theocracy) that is jockeying for power?

Checks and balances. This is grade school civics over here BTW.

Originally Posted by Vieux Normand

As is your assumption that this right is unique to your country. The arms one can purchase in Europe are limited in the same way as those in the States: the practicality of affordability.?

The intent of the right is unique AFAIK. There are no other contries to my knowledge that lists armed revolt as a natural right. (France? Maybe?) It is actually quite a dividing line between our society and most other developed nations.

Originally Posted by Vieux Normand

Here, the State will always have the advantage, and it is naive to think otherwise.

Not in the case of small arms. Absent the current run on stock, with about 3k in funds I could purchase a rifle that our G.I. boys would love and deserve but will never in a million years rbe given out as an issue weapon.

We are also free to choose any caliber or projectile type available. This is not true for standing armies.

Originally Posted by Vieux Normand

You've described a number of power divisions in your country--ones common in other nations as well--but the biggest source of armed power is still federally-controlled. These divisions you describe serve to consolidate federal power.

Which is power granted by "public mandate". Your looking at the ass of the snake and thinking it's the head. Are you by any chance a U.S. congressperson?

Originally Posted by Vieux Normand

Your simplistic assumption that a single dictator is the only way totalitarian rule can come to a nation ignores the many instances in history that parties and similar groups were able to achieve this end. Others have pointed out that written rights-in-principle exist in your country even though the political process can be--and sometimes has been--co-opted and corrupted by poweful vested interests. A number of other nations can make this exact point about their own political situations. So what?

So, those abuses of power were invariably preceeded by disarmamnet of the population.

In fact, said corruption and abuse of power is specifically the "tyrany" described in the second amendment. It's intent is to maintain a society at arms. Period.

With traitors in both houses of congress, a president who literally signed amendments four through nine out the effing window, a viirtual civil war spilling across our southern border and China vocally stating it's intent to militarilly expand across the globe sometime this century, it is as relvant now as it ever was.

You need to stop applying you countries values to the conversation. Whatever arangement you have over there is your problem and completely irrelevant to U.S. law and regulations.

In fact, I would say you are wholey ignorant of the actual mindset of most American gun owners. Many of which are current or ex-military.

The people talking about how the 2nd amendment is moot because it doesn't allow you to have the latest tanks or planes are not taking on board the history of either of the Afghan wars or Northern Ireland. Google 'guerrilla warfare'.

Besides, if things ever did get that bad, you'd have big chunks of the military defecting.

The people talking about how the 2nd amendment is moot because it doesn't allow you to have the latest tanks or planes are not taking on board the history of either of the Afghan wars or Northern Ireland. Google 'guerrilla warfare'.

Besides, if things ever did get that bad, you'd have big chunks of the military defecting.

With millitary harware up for grabs all over the place.

Our nation is nothing if not exceptional at making war.

With all the WMD's we've stockpiled for decades strewn throughout the country a modern civil war here could turn into a sci-fi apocalyptic nightmare. We have force multipliers capable of biblical level horrors. Some of them are a but a short roadtrip from the keyboard where I type this. Go to the east, you've got the worst chemical weapons ever cooked. Go to the north you've got plutonium stock piles and enough dirty bomb material to poison every living thing on earth. Anti tank? How about "anti city".

Most of the people posting "ya can't revolt" come from countries much smaller and weaker that ours. I mean, we've got individual states with more population, teritory, and arms than most countries. Hell, we've got "boats" that can make that boast!

This is a giant world power people. Even the soccer moms own ARs with pink grips and Hello Kitty stickers.

Again, this claim is made by the heads of a number of states, not only the US.

Who are residents of the comunities they police.

Any member of the State is a member of his or her community. They are not manufactured in vats.

Then they are guilty of treason and vastly outnumbered.

But not necessarily outgunned. Their arsenal is not limited to small arms.

Checks and balances. This is grade school civics over here BTW.

As it is here...with the proviso that they are theoretical and therefore subject to subversion. We are taught to be vigilant in respect to precisely this--by history as well as school.

The intent of the right is unique AFAIK. There are no other contries to my knowledge that lists armed revolt as a natural right. (France? Maybe?) It is actually quite a dividing line between our society and most other developed nations.

I am referring to practical real-life differences, not abstractions. Armed revolt will occur, given sufficient provocation, whether it is recognized in writing or not. That is our definition of a "natural right".

Not in the case of small arms.

The State arsenal is not, in modern countries, limited to small arms.

We are also free to choose any caliber or projectile type available. This is not true for standing armies.

Ditto.

So, those abuses of power were invariably preceeded by disarmamnet of the population.

No. They were only preceded by the disarmament of those persons who opposed them. Those who agreed with them, one the other hand...

In fact, said corruption and abuse of power is specifically the "tyrany" described in the second amendment.

The fact that something is in writing does not prevent its subversion.

It's intent is to maintain a society at arms. Period.

If that were true, you'd be doing like the Swiss and requiring households to be armed. Why, then, is this not done in the USA?

With traitors in both houses of congress, a president who literally signed amendments four through nine out the effing window, a viirtual civil war spilling across our southern border and China vocally stating it's intent to militarilly expand across the globe sometime this century, it is as relvant now as it ever was.

You are afraid, aren't you?

You need to stop applying you countries values to the conversation.

I made little or no mention of "me countries values", other than simply stating that gun ownership is not a big deal over here. It's a tool. We use it. Hunting, recreation and so on.

Whatever arangement you have over there is your problem and completely irrelevant to U.S. law and regulations.

Likewise. Duh.

In fact, I would say you are wholey ignorant of the actual mindset of most American gun owners. Many of which are current or ex-military.

I had previously written that the American take on guns appeared to be something akin to religious sacrament, as opposed to merely considering guns to be tools. However, the horrible-nightmare-of-nightmares scenario you've described above, with congress, the prez, the Mexicans and the Chinese all out to get you, indicate a mindset primarily dominated by abject fear.

A Prayer

The C in C is the President. There is a huge level of respect for the President in the United States. With the exception of loud whackos on both sides the vast majority of Americans respect the president regardless of politics. The oath of office and military is to the constitution. If the office was usurped, this tremendous amount of respect suddenly becomes a huge negative for any would be dictator or totalitarian faction. Without constitutional mandate the C in C power goes away as a practical consequence of this.

What6 do you suggest? We replace POTUS with a robot? We arleady tried to elect Gore in 2000! Good god man, what more do you want?

Originally Posted by Vieux Normand

Again, this claim is made by the heads of a number of states, not only the US.

Ok, and how many of those state empower the people to resort to violence if the sytem is buggered?

Originally Posted by Vieux Normand

Any member of the State is a member of his or her community. They are not manufactured in vats.

You seem to think they would behave as if they were.

Originally Posted by Vieux Normand

But not necessarily outgunned. Their arsenal is not limited to small arms.

Nor is ours. Some of the biggest stockpiles of nightmare stuff on the planet are but a stones throw from my front door. It ain't pretty and it ain't terribly well guraded either.

Originally Posted by Vieux Normand

As it is here...with the proviso that they are theoretical and therefore subject to subversion. We are taught to be vigilant in respect to precisely this--by history as well as school.

Then once again, why are you asking questions you already know the answer to?

Originally Posted by Vieux Normand

I am referring to practical real-life differences, not abstractions. Armed revolt will occur, given sufficient provocation, whether it is recognized in writing or not. That is our definition of a "natural right".

Official enumeration isn't a practical "real world" difference?

Ours IS written down so nobody can get confused when stupid conversations like this pop up.

Originally Posted by Vieux Normand

The State arsenal is not, in modern countries, limited to small arms.

What's your point?

Originally Posted by Vieux Normand

Ditto.

Prove this.

Originally Posted by Vieux Normand

No. They were only preceded by the disarmament of those persons who opposed them. Those who agreed with them, one the other hand...

Are you even trying to make a point here? The class to be subjugated was first dissarmed. If you agree then why even try to argue?

Originally Posted by Vieux Normand

The fact that something is in writing does not prevent its subversion.

It does however preserve and prove it's existence.

Originally Posted by Vieux Normand

If that were true, you'd be doing like the Swiss and requiring households to be armed. Why, then, is this not done in the USA?

It has to do with the way laws work here. Some are broad federal laws that everybody must follow (child porn is illegal in all states for example...)

Some are states laws that only aply in that teritory. ( California's bizzare and convoluted firearms regulations for instance.)

Some are local ordinance. (You can open carry a Katana in Orgeon but not in the Portland city park down the street.)

There are notable small areas where firearms ownership is mandatory. They have as little crime as Switzerland. (Less actually) Go figure?

Originally Posted by Vieux Normand

You are afraid, aren't you?

Dude, Drudge Report has "civil war" splashed across their main page right now. A senator just introduced a bill that would make more than half the population of the U.S. de-facto criminals and enemies of the state. I live in a politically diverse region very close to previously mentioned stockpiles of cold war nightmares.

Yeah bro, I'm sacred as hell for the direction things are going and I don't think your solution of "roll over and do what the man with the gun says" is a great idea given the numerous historical precedents.

What's that you said about vigilance?

Originally Posted by Vieux Normand

I made little or no mention of "me countries values", other than simply stating that gun ownership is not a big deal over here. It's a tool. We use it. Hunting, recreation and so on.

Great, how would you feel if you were denied your tools? They are looking to ban lever actions Veux. LEVER ACTIONS. This is not about safety, this is about DOMINION. Period.

Originally Posted by Vieux Normand

Likewise. Duh.

Why are we even having this discussion then?

Originally Posted by Vieux Normand

I had previously written that the American take on guns appeared to be something akin to religious sacrament, as opposed to merely considering guns to be tools.

I see them as tools. The job they are supposed to perform is sacred to us. (Preservation of liberty) There are those in power who wish to deny us the ability to do that job. In facdt, the kind of social ideas they have are downright dystopian. Kafkaesque. Outlawing large sodas and such. Making it illegal to own items not produced by companies they are invested in and other conflicts of interest. Kleptocratic bullshit is what it is!

Originally Posted by Vieux Normand

However, the horrible-nightmare-of-nightmares scenario you've described above, with congress, the prez, the Mexicans and the Chinese all out to get you, indicate a mindset primarily dominated by abject fear.

Or maybe I'm just being "vigilant" and paying attention to the emerging world power that openly discusses it's intent to annex the whole Pacific rim. (That would include my home BTW.)

Maybe I'm paying attention to the constant armed incursions by drug cartels into U.S. teritory. (I have family in Mexico BTW. This is about paramilitary forces running wild. It has nothing to do with my Grandpa Jaime. You think I have a problem with "Mexicans". lol Your talking to one, dude.)

Maybe I'm paying attention when Congress enacts laws which gut the constitutions most important protections (the ones establishing our justice system BTW, not the gun thing...).

Maybe I'm paying attention when our President does the same thing.

Maybe, just maybe, I don't like watching our country go down the same road as Weimar Germany. Maybe I'm aware of several branches of my family tree that were "pruned" in the 40's because of that little fiasco.

Maybe I'd rather die fighting than stand idly by and watch it happen again.

As the very effing least, I will excersise my rights to vote and contact my representatives as well as stand in protest against what I see as violations of the social compact between us and our elected REPRESENTATIVES.

Originally Posted by Vieux Normand

The world's as scary as that, is it?

Welcome to the 21st century Vieux. I don't want to see my country turned into a third world cess pool. How bout you? You want to see that happen where you live?

Originally Posted by Vieux Normand

Well, I'm happy with my 10-ga. and my three-ought.

Maybe I should be...scared?

What do you need a 10 guage for? 12 or even 20 would work just fine on any game you wish to hunt. Why the overkill? Nobody needs a 10 gauge to hunt with. What are you, some kind of gun nut?

Everybody realize that DiFi has a CCW and armed security. She just want to get maybe a fourth of that bill. The next mass shooting(gun free zone) or Free FRire Zone .Then DiFi will be back for more gun grabbing. Oh **** I meant more safety restrictions. Alittle bit at a time until 2nd amendment means no private firearms.Don't you know ,we firearms owners cannot be trusted with such evil things. A good discussion of this propsal is at a milblog This Ain't Hell(TAH). Joe